1. This civil revision has been filed by the applicant against the order granting maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law by the father-in-law (applicant) under section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

2. According to the applicant, in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, there is no provision for maintenance. Of course, after coming to the course of the Family Courts Act, an appeal is now provided to its earlier order which was passed by the Family Court which may include such an order. However the question remains as to whether against an order passed under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act not by a Family Court but by an ordinarily civil Court if an appeal is not provided then what is the remedy.

3. According to the applicant, answer is given by the apex Court in the case of Sadhana Lodhi v. National Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2003 Legal Eagle (SC) 86. In the aforesaid judgment, the apex Court has held as follows:-

“Even if where a remedy by way of an appeal has not been provided for against the order and judgment of a District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a revision before the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where remedy for filing a revision before the High Court under section 115 of CPC has been expressly barred by a State enactment, only in such case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. As a matter of an illustration, where a trial Court in a civil suit refused to grant temporary injunction and an appeal against refusal to grant injunction has been rejected, and a State enactment has barred the remedy of filing revision under section 115 CPC, in such a situation a writ petition under Article 227 would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, where the State legislature has barred a remedy of filing a revision petition before the High Court under section 115 CPC, no petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would lie for the reason that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the civil revision has been filed by the applicant is maintainable.

5. I agree with the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. In view of the aforesaid, office is directed to register this case as “Civil Revision”.

7. Notice be issued to the respondents on filing P.F. within ten days, returnable within two weeks.

Anand V. Bhardwaj for applicant.